To think that people here (and especially in Japan) complained that the XBox360 was too big. These people are in for a shock when they see the size of the PS3!

http://www.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/game/news/article.jsp?sectionId=1006&articleId=2006081195220737049&releaseId=20060314115917309058

Somehow this link seems rather relvant.

I think i might just get a good fun Wii for £150...

---

Full On Design

Your best bet for a easy DVD player is buying one ;)

I hear the Wii will be quite small, If they make it so i can rest my drinks on it...i will be a happy little bunny.

---

Full On Design

Oh, I guess i misread it :)

I reckon if someone released an emulator for ps3 and 360 (Maybe wii) i would buy it! *thinks for a moment...then runs to mac HQ*.

---

Full On Design

BluRay is Sony's High Definition DVD format, with HD-DVD being Toshiba's High Definition format. Both have much higher capacity than a normal DVD.

Of course, neither is any use without a HD TV to go with it, which is why Microsoft went with a normal DVD drive in the Xbox360 (BluRay and HD-DVD are very expensive)

So while the PS3 games can store more data on a BluRay disc than the Xbox games can store on a DVD, the BluRay has the problem that disc access speed is half that the speed (or less) than a DVD drive, so PS3 owners are going to have much longer loading times than XBox owners. (speed comparisons are based on the speed of the drives being used in the consoles... not what can be purchased from other sources)

Wii is DVD based and is a lot smaller than either of those two. Original reports from it's first unveiling suggested that it was around the size of 3 DVD cases. Although the processor and graphics chips are less powerful than either these two as well, therefore requiring less cooling space, I still find it hard to believe that the console would be around the same size as a standard PC DVD drive, then again with a laptop style slimline drive it might be possible.

not sure, I would like a 360 but I don't really have the time to justify getting one yet

No, it just generally kicks more ass.

---

Full On Design

quote:

---

Originally posted by rogeman

No, it just generally kicks more ass.

---

Sadly this is not the case, even nVidia have made comment about the ATI graphics chip having the edge over their PS3 one (well, was mentioned in a CNN article, not sure of the source - however the two chip sets are largely the same feature wise though ATI have a unified shader system while nVidia have seperate pixel and vertex shaders so is more prone to bottlenecking. unless nVidia up the clock rate, they definately won't have a performance advantage). Also, developers have reported that although the theoretical performance of the Cell processor exceeds that of the CPU in the 360, the real world performance is pretty much the same.

And as it is, reports on the games that are coming out on both platforms indicate that they look pretty identical.

The main causes of the price difference is the Bluray drive, and on the top end model the HDMI port is also a fairly pricey component.

Found an article which comments on the technical capabilities of the consoles.

The article points out that the high end 360 and the low end PS3 are effectively the same aside from the BluRay, so if you are after a cheap BluRay player in addition to your gaming then the PS3 is a good deal, however as a gaming console, you don't get anything extra for your $100. This does mean that for the high end PS3, you are paying a lot more than the high end 360 and all you get to show for it is (in addition to the BluRay which is in the low end PS3) is an extra 40GB of HD space and an HDMI port.

http://spong.com/article/10660/?cb=98

While I think the extra $100 is worth it if you really want a BluRay player as well as a console, I think that the extra increase for the high end PS3 model offers very little benefit for the extra cost.